technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 51 · 1,511 total
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
1 di 7 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 342/2025 Ordinanza depositata il 23.9.2025 RICORRENTE 3V Sigma s.p.a. RESISTENTI ACEF s.r.l. AGA s.r.l. (già ACEF s.p.a.) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO Italiano
APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application for an inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the latter's trade fair stand in Hannover. The application was made in preparation for a main infringement action. The patent had been granted on April 26, 2017, without any opposition being filed, and was in force in multiple European countries. The respondent, the parent company of the GPAINNOVA Group, had also filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in a related main proceeding (UPC_CFI_511/2025).
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Teleconmmunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH Issued on 18/09/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. No. 18 Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town, Guangdong Provinc
TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD. v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH brought infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four TP-LINK entities concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The defendants filed a request on May 26, 2025 to stay the proceedings. With the agreement of both parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure until the EPO's decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings are concluded.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_697/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Merz Therapeutics GmbH Eckenheimer Landstraße 100 60318 Frankfurt am Main - DE 2) Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC Unit 35/36, 6601 Six Forks Road, 4th Fl
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant (Ona Patents SL) withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants (Apple entities) withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees paid in relation to the counterclaim for revocation, amounting to €8,000.
Washtower IP B.V., Washtower B.V. v.Respondent
This is a final enforcement order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP35227555, owned by Washtower IP B.V. Following an earlier order of 11 September 2025, the applicants indicated their wish to enforce the injunctions, information order, penalty sums, and costs award against defendants 2-5. The Court confirmed receipt of security deposits totaling €50,000 and authorized electronic service of the final order on defendants 2-5, who had consented to service by email and waived their right to translations into German and Polish.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Disney Electronic Content, Inc., BAMTech LLC / BAMTech Media / Disney Streaming Services (LLC) / Disney Streaming, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC / Disney Entertainment Operations LLC, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Interactive, Disne
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 2 080 349 in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS against multiple Disney entities. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide the bifurcation question early, ordering that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation be heard jointly, with the consent of the parties.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 567 731. Huawei agreed to produce most of the identified license agreements but objected to the production of two additional agreements relating exclusively to network infrastructure products. The Local Chamber Mannheim partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements listed on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 statement, while declining to order production of certain other agreements.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office (EPO)
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande d'annulation d'une décision prise par l'Office de rejet d'une demande d'effet unitaire (R. 97 RdP) rendue le 16 septembre 2025 EN-TETE • Conformément aux dispositions de la Règle 85(2) RdP,
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, arguing that its representatives did not speak German. The defendants indicated they did not require interpretation and opposed cost-sharing. The court found the request admissible, having been filed within the deadline under Rule 109.1 RoP and meeting the formal requirements of Rule 109(a)-(d) RoP.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare B.V.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi A/S v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Respondent
Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
Windhager Handels GmbH v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Mannheim granted HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. based on European patent EP3667981. The defendant argued that English was the predominant language in mobile communications technology, that the evidence and ETSI standard specifications were predominantly in English, and that conducting proceedings in German imposed significant translation burdens and costs. Applying the framework established by the Court of Appeal, the Court weighed all relevant circumstances and found the outcome balanced, holding that in cases of equal weighting, the position of the defendant—who did not initiate the action and faces strict preparation deadlines—shall prevail.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
UPC Decision UPC-000366 v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed by Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. against several defendants, including members of the BEGA group of companies, alleging infringement of European Patent EP3522755B1. The patent relates to a cabinet designed to house a washing machine or washer-dryer at waist level for ergonomic use. The application against the first defendant, Wasombouw B.V., was withdrawn shortly after filing, while the proceedings continued against the remaining defendants. The Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance held an oral hearing on 14 August 2025 and issued its order on 11 September 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This provisional order concerns a confidentiality application filed by the defendants (MediaTek) in connection with their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The defendants sought protection for technical information regarding the functioning of certain chips, particularly the implementation of an encoding algorithm, and requested that access be limited to a maximum of three named persons from the plaintiff's legal department. Huawei opposed the request, arguing the information was not protectable as it consisted merely of negative facts, and alternatively requested access for nine, six, or three named persons.
Washtower v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH et al
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. (Applicants), proprietors of European Patent EP3522755B1 relating to cabinets for housing washing machines at waist level, sought provisional measures against several defendants from the BEGA furniture group and a related partner company. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent by the defendants' manufacture and sale of competing washing machine cabinets. The Local Division The Hague issued an order on provisional measures following an oral hearing held on 14 August 2025, after the Applicants filed their application on 28 May 2025 and the parties exchanged submissions including objections, replies, and rejoinders.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
ECOVACS Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a request for extension of deadlines filed by Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) in a patent infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff alleges infringement of European Patent EP 3 494 446 against four Ecovacs group entities in China, Germany, France, and the United States. Defendant 2 seeks to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense and any counterclaim for invalidity until November 26, 2025, and the deadline for filing a Preliminary Objection until September 26, 2025, offering in return to facilitate service on the other three defendants to create a uniform deadline regime.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.